The Court made the remarks upon hearing Kangana Ranaut’s plea challenging the demolition of part of his office
Bombay:
The Bombay High Court said on Monday that something fishy was going on within the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) regarding the demolition of suspected illegal buildings, comments arose during a hearing of a petition written by actor Kangana Ranaut.
A bench of Judges SJ Kathawalla and RI Chagla said that in Ms Ranaut’s case, the civic body did not follow its own practice of attaching photos of alleged illegal constructions with its stop-work notices and waiting a few days before proceeding with demolitions.
The HC made the remarks upon hearing the petition filed by Ms. Ranaut challenging the demolition of part of her office at Pali Hill in the suburb of Bandra by the BMC on September 9.
The judges were questioning the officer from Quarter H of the BMC, Bhagyawant Late, a defendant in the petition under whose jurisdiction Ms Ranaut’s property falls.
During questioning, the magistracy noted that in the event of similar illegalities in buildings near Ms. Ranaut, the BMC had waited several days to proceed with the demolition.
In addition, in most other cases, he had attached photos of the suspected illegal construction with his stop-works notices to building owners, and in such cases he did not often take the police for the job. demolition, he said.
However, in regards to Ms Ranaut’s case, the BMC did not have digital time stamped photos of the alleged illegalities, and the demolition was carried out in the presence of a huge police force just 24 hours after the shutdown. a work notice was served on the actor, the bench noted.
The judges noted that in its response, the BMC claimed to have demolished a similar case of illegality on September 8.
But when the bench asked Mr Late for photos or tapes of the demolition, the latter said no photos or documents existed.
The neighborhood officer also said the BMC team did not bring police in for the September 8 demolition.
This irritated the bench.
Mr Sakare, (permanent BMC lawyer) here, there is something absolutely fishy! There are no photos for 8.
How is it that in the system, this demolition does not appear on the 8th (September)? It is only when we have requested the file that it is prepared. Is there an answer? It said.
The bench also questioned why the BMC took a huge police force on September 9 to demolish Ms Ranaut’s office.
To this, Mr Late said Ms Ranaut’s case was “critical”.
What is the definition of critical cases? In the case of celebrities, does this become a critical case? asked the bench.
Ms Ranaut’s attorney, Dr Birendra Saraf, raised questions about the BMC’s action at the actor’s office.
Saraf argued that the manner in which the entire BMC team intervened on September 7 by issuing the stop-work notice and then rejecting Ms Ranaut’s response and proceeding with the demolition, the discrepancy of documents, between others, showed that the action was vitiated by malice.
Saraf pointed out that the demolition was followed by a news article (September 10) in “Saamana,” where Shiv Sena chief Sanjay Raut is editor-in-chief, which was in the headlines somehow showing good news.
Saraf urged the court to ensure that damage to Ms Ranaut’s property is assessed by a qualified person and then decide on a fair compensation amount for it.
In her plea, Ms Ranaut claimed 2 crore rupees in damages from BMC and its officials.
During the one-day hearing, Saraf also aired an excerpt from an interview in which Mr Raut said “Ranaut should be given a lesson”.
The deputy for Sena is also a defendant in the petition.
Mr Rauts’ attorney, Pradeep Thorat, however argued that throughout the interview, the Sena leader did not refer to Ms Ranaut by name.
If it’s your booth that you (in audio) didn’t call the petitioner a “haramkhor”, we’ll record it. Should we register your return? The court said, referring to an alleged comment by Raut during the interview.
“Don’t run in the bushes … Have the courage to say (in court) what you tweeted or said to a news channel, the court told counsel for Mr Raut and Ms Ranaut.
The BMC, meanwhile, denied all allegations of malice by Ms. Ranaut.
Lead attorney Aspi Chinoy, who appeared for the BMC, urged the HC to dismiss the plea, or hear Ms Ranaut through a trial, not a writ motion, saying that in a trial, Ms. Ranaut should stand in the lodge (witness boxed) and clarify all the facts.
Let this be handled in a costume. Let her get into a box and let her establish these facts. Alternatively, this is a petition that deserves to be rejected.
“It lacks absolute frankness. This petition is presented as a person being harassed because of its public statements against a government and a ruling party,” Chinoy said.
The reality is slightly different. This is a case where the petitioner illegally made substantial illegal modifications, he said.
Referring to the courts’ previous remark on the speed shown by the BMC in Ms Ranaut’s case, Chinoy said that I agree that there is a faster response in this case.
“But that is not an answer (plea from Mme Ranaut). You cannot carry out illegal construction.
The court will hear Mr. Raut’s observations on Tuesday.
